By Jeff Neff
(Note: This issue is a current issue before Council. One of the team members of ILoveAltoona.com, Matt Garber, is a Councilman. The following opinions are not necessarily representative of Matt's.)
Let's talk about property rights. This entire issue of mandating who can live where in the city of Altoona has me wondering if city politicians really believe that this is the way to protect property owners' rights. Freedom and liberty are rooted in property ownership and this ordinance will destroy hopes of having the freedom that owners should have. This is not a debate. This is a Constitutional Right under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. Please look into these.
Before I begin telling the political side of this argument, I'll give you a common sense argument. Why would a person live next to a college campus and expect not to have parties nearby? Seriously, think about the sense in punishing the entire city for a few complainers who would rather inconvenience everybody else instead of make a tough decision to move someplace else- or not to have moved there in the first place.
Isn't it funny that this ordinance is intended to prevent growth? Altoona is known, or at least claims to be known, as a college town. Why on earth would city officials pass an ordinance to prevent student housing growth; especially in a time when the housing market is so volatile?
Does the city really need to get involved with something that does not concern them? Certainly some officials believe that it is their job to meddle in these affairs or else this ordinance would not have passed in the first place, but the truth of the matter is that it is not the City of Altoona's job to control Penn State's students. Penn State should be able to handle their students without help from the government. Instead of letting campus officials pass the buck to the Altoona City Council members, why don't city officials put the people in mind first?
Concerning the U.S. and PA Constitutions, you must understand that private property ownership and the pursuit of happiness are inseparable. The Constitution does not include a clause for "college towns" with neighbors who insist on telling others what they can do with their property through pushy big government ordinances. There are already existing laws for noises violations, disturbances, and other annoyances. Anything further is just big government getting in the way.
If a landlord's vision for The American Dream includes owning rental property (anywhere he chooses), then he is pursuing his dream. If a homeowner decides that he disapproved of how another person is using their property and uses coercion to make them stop, it is infringing the rights of the other person. Unless that homeowner is misusing the property at the entire city's expense (for instance, a drug dealer safe-haven), there is no justification for using government coercion to bully a homeowner around.
If the plan is to make the nearby houses worth more by restricting landowner rights; then the market is no longer running itself, and there is nothing better for an economy than a free market.
I see no examples of how properties proximal to the Altoona campus are negatively effecting society-at-large, because we are talking about properties which affect an extremely limited amount of people who should have a basic knowledge of what it means to live right near to a college campus.
The choices are clear: Compromise constitutional principles and reason or discontinue the ambition to grow Altoona as a college town and forfeit Altoona's free market. While we're at it, why don't we propose an ordinance to limit the amount of Sheetz stores in Altoona since they attract kids, cars, and are just too loud for neighbors when they say, "Welcome to Sheetz, pump 3." It only makes sense when big-government politicians let a little power get to their heads.
